holding that a petitioner may not complain of his counsel following his instructions to not investigate and prepare an insanity defense
How later courts described this case
- holding that a petitioner may not complain of his counsel following his instructions to not investigate and prepare an insanity defense
- “Peti- fcioner, who preempted his attorney’s strategy choice, cannot now claim as erroneous the very defense he demanded [his counsel] present.”
- counsel not ineffective when decision to present mitigating evidence in particular manner based upon years of criminal practice in particular region
- decision of attorney to abide his client’s wishes and not to present depraved mind theory of second degree murder held not ineffective.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1352 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
Upon further consideration, we conclude that the failure of the appellant to raise the issue concerning “the trial court’s findings of fact in support of its sentence” in its brief or in oral argument before us forecloses our consideration of the issue sua sponte. Cf. Stephens v. Zant, 716 F.2d 276 (5th Cir.1983), on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States).
That part of our opinion in this case beginning with VI and through the conclusion, together with the dissenting opinion, are hereby stricken and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:
■THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT DENYING THE WRIT IS AFFIRMED.
No member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be' polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.